Existence of building on the disputed land provides jurisdiction of Rent Controller.

ORDER.-The revision petitioner, a tenant undaunted by failures in all the Courts below, has come up to this Court challenging the validity of an order of eviction passed against him in R.C.O. P. No. 430 of 1965 which was confirmed by the lower authorities both in appeal and revision. He challenged the order on the ground that what was demised in his favour was a mere extensive vacant site to enable him to run a timber depot. The mere fact that there exists a masonry structure, which the learned’ counsel for the petitioner (Mr. Nainar-sundaram) admits, will not clothe the Rent Controller with the jurisdiction to proceed with the matter under the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent, Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) (as amended by Tamil Nadu Act XXIII of 1973). According to him, if the dominant intention was to carry on a timber depot, the definition of “building” under section 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Act (XXIII of 1973) would not take in such a lease. In support of this argument, the learned counsel for petitioner cites the decisions in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Vairavan Chettiar1 and Jugal Kishore v. Ashok Mills2. The mere existence of a masonry structure would not mean that it would constitute a building within the meaning of the Act since that was a negligible portion. Under similar circumstances, the Patna High Court has ruled concerning the definition in the Patna Act that the Rent Control Court would not have jurisdiction. Therefore, that reasoning will have to prevail. From that point of view, the orders of the Courts below are unsustainable.

2. Mr. M.R. Narayanaswamy, learned counsel for the respondent, would draw my attention to the definition of “building” occurring in section 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act, and state that there is absolutely no warrant to import the theory of dominant intention. On the contrary, the definition of “building” is unambiguous and clear, it being an inclusive definition. The fact that it includes the garden, grounds and out-houses let along with the building would be enough to attract the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. Whatever may be the view of the Patna High Court, so long as this definition is clear and unambiguous there is no scope for applying the theory of dominant intention. The decision in Palaniappa Chettiar v. Vairavan Chettiar1, merely defines the word “appurtenant” and that is not relevant to the facts of this case. Finally it is submitted that when the finding relating to the bona fide requirement of the landlord under section 14(1)(b) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act (XVIII of 1960) (as amended by Tamil Nadu Act XXIII of 1973) had not been disputed, it would only mean that the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller had been conceded because the landlord in that application sought to demolish and reconstruct his building.

3. In order to appreciate the point involved in this revision, I need refer to the definition of “building” occurring in section 2(2) of the Tamil Nadu Buildings (Lease and Rent Control) Act which reads as follows:-

“2 (2) ‘building’ means any building or hut or part of a building or hut, let or to be let separately for residential or non-residential purposes and includes (a) ‘the garden, grounds and out-houses, if any, appurtenant to such building, or part of such building or hut and let or to be let along with such building or hut,......”

The first thing that requires to be noted is that it is an inclusive definition, as rightly pointed out by the learned counsel for the respondent (landlord). The reason why I want to rather stress this aspect is, because it is a definition in favour of the landlord so that the matter may be put beyond controversy. Where the building alone is let if there is a garden or ground or out-house appurtenant to or let along with such building, they would also be taken in and the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller cannot be ousted on that ground. In the instant case, the learned coun

Click Here to Read the rest of this document